A Way to Look at "Travelling"

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

"Look at TRAVELLING not so much an error made by a weak athlete, as a mistake forced by a strong defense."

If accepted as valid . . .
A. Might this prompt us to pass on the "ticky-tac" travelling calls that really don't impact play in any significant way?
B. Might this way of thinking be more in according with"officiating the defense"?
C. Might this especially reward the defense for good, pressure play?
D. Would this prompt us to, for sure, catch those travelling violations that would otherwise result in a real advantage over the defense?
E. Could this manner of thinking cause us to miss calls we really should be getting?

Your comment/input/critique invited as I ruminate over this concept.

[just another ref]

I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the hell?"

[JRutledge]

I have never heard this statement before and honestly not sure what the point of this statement is in the first place. I just want to call the obvious ones, not the ones were I have to look at slow motion replay to tell if it actually was a travel.

Peace

[Adam]

I agree with Jeff. It seems like some grand philosophical point that means nothing. It could be used to justify any number of poor officiating philosophies.

[stiffler3492]

Sounds like a point that belongs at a coaching clinic.

[BktBallRef]

I have one way of looking at traveling...which foot is the pivot?

[tref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I have one way of looking at traveling...which foot is the pivot?

AND did the player have possession during that time.

So many times guys call a travel based on the excess movement of the feet, with no look (backs & butts) at the status of the ball.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

If accepted as valid . . .

I appreciate and agree with the responses, except maybe the first one.
This concept is not really valid. Too complex an idea to be of any real, practical use.
Thanx for the reactions.